1403WP5329.07-Judgment 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5329 OF 2007
PETITIONER :- Smt. Archana wd of Madhukarrao Barade,
aged 35 years, Resident of Hinganghat,
tahsil - Hinganghat, District-Wardha.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT :- The Zilla Parishad Wardha, through its Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Zilla
Parishad Wardha, Tahsil and District
Wardha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M.R.Rajgure, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.D.Meghe, counsel for the respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 14.03.2017 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action on the part of the zilla parishad of recovering an amount of Rs.2,54,000/- from the family pension payable to the petitioner.
2. The husband of the petitioner was working as a junior clerk-cum-cashier in the Panchayat Samiti, Wardha. Due to some ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 01:00:06 ::: 1403WP5329.07-Judgment 2/5 irregularities committed by the husband of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the husband of the petitioner. According to the zilla parishad, the husband of the petitioner had retained the cheques for the amount of Rs.78,18,000/- in the almirah in his office, though the said cheques pertained to the income tax, provident fund and the Life Insurance Corporation dues. Certain other charges were also levelled against the husband of the petitioner. In the departmental enquiry, four out of the five charges levelled against the husband of the petitioner were held to be proved. On 15/01/2003, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment of the husband of the petitioner for three years and the recovery of an amount of Rs.3,03,701/- from him. The said amount was recovered from the salary of the husband of the petitioner every month in small installments. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner expired on 27/09/2006. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the zilla parishad sought the recovery of the balance amount of Rs.2,54,000/- from the family pension payable to the petitioner. The action of the zilla parishad of recovering the said amount from the family pension of the petitioner is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 01:00:06 :::
1403WP5329.07-Judgment 3/5
3. Shri Rajgure, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since no financial loss was caused to the zilla parishad due to the irregularities committed by the husband of the petitioner, the zilla parishad could not have directed the recovery of Rs.3,03,701/- from the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted that this court may take a sympathetic view in this matter as a special case, as the monthly family pension received by the petitioner is very meager and it would not be possible for the petitioner to survive if the amount of Rs.2,54,000/- is deducted from the family pension, even by installments.
4. Shri Meghe, the learned counsel for the zilla parishad, has supported the action of the zilla parishad. It is submitted that though the husband of the petitioner was alive and was in service till he expired on 27/09/2006, he had not challenged the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15/01/2003 directing the recovery of the amount of Rs.3,03,701/- from him. It is submitted that for more than three and half years certain amount was deducted from the salary of the petitioner's husband in small installments. It is however admitted that the monthly family pension payable to the petitioner is not much. It is stated that an appropriate order may be passed in the circumstances of the case.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 01:00:06 :::
1403WP5329.07-Judgment 4/5
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner so that the respondent-zilla parishad may not recover any amount from the family pension payable to the petitioner though the petitioner would not have a right to challenge the order dated 15/01/2003, that was not challenged by the husband of the petitioner. The petitioner's husband was working only as a junior clerk and the family pension payable to the petitioner is not much. Moreover, the petitioner's husband had expired while in service and hence the family pension payable to the petitioner is meager. On a reading of the enquiry report, we do not find that the petitioner's husband had caused any monetary loss to the zilla parishad, at least that is not the finding of the enquiry officer in the report that is placed before us, except a small amount of which a mention is made in the report. During his lifetime, an amount of more than Rs.50,000/- is recovered from the salary of the husband of the petitioner in installments. One increment of the petitioner's husband was stopped for a period of three years and the petitioner's husband may have suffered the said punishment in the absence of any challenge to the same. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to grant the relief sought by the petitioner and quash the order of the zilla parishad seeking the recovery of Rs.2,54,000/- from ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 01:00:06 ::: 1403WP5329.07-Judgment 5/5 the family pension payable to the petitioner. While holding so, we make it clear that this order may not be considered as a precedent, as the relief is granted in the peculiar circumstances of the case, considering the extreme hardship that would be caused to the petitioner.
6. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The respondent-zilla parishad is restrained from making a recovery of the balance amount that was sought to be recovered from the husband of the petitioner, from the family pension payable to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2017 01:00:06 :::